Hi Ulrich,
On 27 April 2012 02:24, Ulrich Hertlein <u.hertl...@sandbox.de> wrote:
> Matrix2Template( const Matrix2Template& mat ) { base_class::set(mat.ptr()); }
>
> Could you try that and submit a patch if it works?
I tried the above and it works, but as Sergey mentions the template
still hides the base_class::set(...) so I've gone for a using
base_class:set; instead, I still have a little more testing to do
before I check this in.
> On a related note, it feels weird to have all this Matrix/Vector related
> stuff in the
> 'Uniform' header file, as it can create much confusion with what's already in
> the 'Matrix'
> and 'Vector' header files.
>
> If this is truly Uniform only would it make sense to scope it to
> 'osg::Uniform' or put it
> into separate header files like 'UniformMatrix' and 'UniformVector'?
I'm thinking about this as well. The new Matrix template classes are
much more lightweight than the full blown Matricd and Matrixf so are
essentially data holders rather than mathematical tools. Long term
might they be used elsewhere other than just Uniform? Might then gain
more mathematical functionality? If either of these questions is
maybe or yes then keeping them loosely coupled with Uniform and it's
naming is appropriate. Given I'd be inclined to not lock these new
matrix classes to Uniform.
If we do keep them separate then we still need to work out how these
new matrix classes fit it with the old ones in terms of naming
conventions and functionality that have. I don't have any answer for
these questions yet.
Robert.
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
